Don't blame MI5 or the Government for 7/7!!

[raphael123]

Let us not forget, it was the terrorists who carried it out. I hope people don't start thinking it was the government, or MI5's fault who did this. The primary responsibility are the terrorists!

[BDunnell]

I don't think anyone does believe it was the fault of MI5 or the Government that what happened happened. However, there may very well be lessons that can be learned. There's nothing wrong with looking into that.

In addition, it is worth examining why some young Muslims in the UK become radicalised.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Let us not forget, it was the terrorists who carried it out. I hope people don't start thinking it was the government, or MI5's fault who did this. The primary responsibility are the terrorists!

It's obvious that the terrorists are to blame, but if there is anything to be learned, or if there has been any negligence by Government departments, then it needs to be investigated.

In a similar example, Social workers weren't responsible for the ideath of Victoria Climbie, but had they been doing their jobs properly, it's likely that her life would have been saved.

[Gannex]

I don't think anyone does believe it was the fault of MI5 or the Government that [the 7/11 bombings] happened.
I wish you were right about that, BDunnell, but I think you are not. Take Eki, for example. He, and millions who think like him, essentially blame the aggressive policies of the West for atrocities like the July 7th bombings, and the World Trade Center attacks.

[BDunnell]

I wish you were right about that, BDunnell, but I think you are not. Take Eki, for example. He, and millions who think like him, essentially blame the aggressive policies of the West for atrocities like the July 7th bombings, and the World Trade Center attacks.

This is true. You could add the Daily Mail to that list, too. Did you see its front page today? Absolutely ridiculous. If they were being consistent, they would have blamed Thatcher for the Argentine invasion of the Falklands 25 years ago.

I do think it is worth considering the role that external factors play in leading to terrorist atrocities, but not to the extent of placing the entire burden of blame on them, unless there are really good grounds. Exacerbating problems that lead to such acts, yes; blame, no.

[Ian McC]

I can't see the benefit of a public enquiry into this, certainly trawling through the processes of MI5 and putting them on display for all would not be of use. There are always lessons to be learnt, one would hope this is being done in house.

[Gannex]

Exactly! I agree whole-heartedly.

[BDunnell]

But I doubt that a public enquiry would be allowed to in any way compromise the effectiveness of MI5.

[Gannex]

It would have to compromise the effectiveness of MI5 at least in some small degree. Even the trial has done that, if only because it has given plotters out there a better understanding of how this particular lot were caught. A small example: one of the plotters told another man, while they were in the first man's car, that he was confident that the car was not bugged. If my car were bugged, he reasoned, the arrest teams would have moved in on me ages ago, and since they haven't, they obviously do not know what I have been saying in my car.

That reasoning was wrong, and the car was indeed bugged. No terrorist is going to make that mistake again. They will learn from the mistakes of these defendants, as exposed at trial.

The same process of educating the enemy would occur through a public investigation of how MI5 failed to track Siddique Khan, when they already had his name, address and two contacts, known to be dangerous. Analyse that failure publicly, and you cannot but reveal methods and practices of MI5. Knowledge of those methods and practices can only be of help to all the fellows out there trying to beat MI5. An investigation, therefore, must inevitably hurt the effort to prevent these conspiracies from being carried into execution.

[BDunnell]

I would like to think that the security services are more intelligent than to let anything into the public domain in situations such as this that would compromise their operations unduly. None of the revelations in the recent trial were exactly rocket science.

[Malbec]

But I doubt that a public enquiry would be allowed to in any way compromise the effectiveness of MI5.

There's another suggestion, that any investigation into 7/7 would have to reveal the intimate links forged between British intelligence services and Islamist groups in preceding years in the hope that the former could control the latter.

[Gannex]

I would like to think that the security services are more intelligent than to let anything into the public domain in situations such as this that would compromise their operations unduly. None of the revelations in the recent trial were exactly rocket science.

I hope you're right.

[raphael123]

I agree, and think it is important to investigate to see what lessons can be learnt, however I don't agree with the way this is being done - in the public, for all to see of their failings. All it does is undermine them, and embarrass them, and gives the victims a source to vent out their anger, while in reality it should be 100% directed at the terrorists.

Having all their shortcomings put out for the public to see, is hardly going to give them a boost morally is it.

As I think it was Gannex who said, it should have been done in-house, and all this being done in public isn't helping the cause at all!

[ArrowsFA1]

The primary responsibility are the terrorists!
Absolutely :up: but actions like that cannot be seen in isolation. There are reasons why they happen and those reasons need to be understood.

It's too easy to explain terrorism away by saying that it is carried out by "nutty" extremists. It's a short neat media-friendly headline that suits elected politicians. No doubt it's true in some cases, but there are geniune grievances out there, and the policies of governments can and do fuel those grievances.

[raphael123]

Absolutely :up: but actions like that cannot be seen in isolation. There are reasons why they happen and those reasons need to be understood.

It's too easy to explain terrorism away by saying that it is carried out by "nutty" extremists. It's a short neat media-friendly headline that suits elected politicians. No doubt it's true in some cases, but there are geniune grievances out there, and the policies of governments can and do fuel those grievances.

Yes I agree fully that it is important we at least try and understand why they do these terrible acts - however I don't think we can blame the west, or our politicians for the actions they do. The killing of 3,000 innocent people can not be excused because of the way the western world is.

[Valve Bounce]

Let us not forget, it was the terrorists who carried it out. I hope people don't start thinking it was the government, or MI5's fault who did this. The primary responsibility are the terrorists!

Thank God!! for awhile, I thought you were going to blame Honda :D

[raphael123]

Thank God!! for awhile, I thought you were going to blame Honda :D

And would you like to contribute to this discussion? :)

All I have said is Button is down where he is, because Honda have a sh!t car. Anyone would think that was some sort of ludicrous statement the way your going on :dozey:

[BDunnell]

Can we have a poll, please? 'Did Jenson Button cause 7/7, or was it all Honda's fault?'

[schmenke]

I blame the lack of overtaking... :dozey:

[SOD]

Mi5 and the JSG are operating in Iraq. :yawn:

who is showing the terrorists how to make the bobms anyway?

[SOD]

Yes I agree fully that it is important we at least try and understand why they do these terrible acts - however I don't think we can blame the west, or our politicians for the actions they do. The killing of 3,000 innocent people can not be excused because of the way the western world is.

was the 1993 attack, payback for Gulf War 1?

Gulf War 1 was no gentle war by any means.

[Mark in Oshawa]

SOD, the first Gulf War was the motive but not in the way you want us to think, in that you likely think it was revenge. No, Bin Laden is a radical, who hates anyone who doesn't really subscribe to his version of hardline Wahabi Islam. He REALLY hates "infidels" and that was his rationale for attacking America. That and how America gave up on Somalia after the bad press of the "Black Hawk Down" incident. He figured they had no business being in Saudi to "protect" Islamic shrines in Saudi Arabia, and that infidels shouldn't be allowed in the holy nation of Islam. Therefore, he figured America was a patsy to attack. Considering Clinton treated terrorists like common criminals rather than the terrorists they are, it became apparent that he could esclate his "war" with the US at will.

The first World Trade Center attack was not an operation of his, but by men sharing similar thoughts, including Muslim's living in New York all along. Quit trying to ascribe logic and moral equivalence to explain the motives of these guys. They hate western culture and all it stands for. They hate our freedoms, and they don't ascribe to our views on human rights. You get a supporter of this exterme form of Islam and ask him what he thinks, he will come right out and tell you he would like to kill Americans, Kill Jews and make the Western world Islamic. They don't hide who they are, it just is Western Liberals who refuse to see this for what it is....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gulf War 1 wasn't gentle, but Saddam wasn't gentle in what he did to Kuwait. Notice not one peep is heard from Kuwait to this day about the Americans being in the Persian Gulf. Also note, Kuwait doesn't sell oil to the Yanks extra cheap or do anything that is a special favour to the Americans. They just appreciate still having their country, and they appreciate what the western world did putting their country back on its feet. Of course, someone will try to say how the Kuwaiti's are pawns now......

[SOD]

no matter how eleqouently you put it, there was no justification for Gulf War 2.

too bad for those who were frightened by the propaganda. :wave:

[Mark in Oshawa]

SOD, I guess the fact that the American Gov't was not going to err on the side of another terrorist attack happening on their watch wasn't a factor? Whatever you may think of Bushie, half of the Democrats in Congress wanted to blame him for 9/11. You want justification for the invasion of Iraq? Well, when the CIA tells a president that a dictator who hates the whole concept of the US of A and how they embarassed him has weapons of mass destruction, do you wait until they sell them to a terrorist group? I don't for a second believe NOW that this was going to happen, but in that post 9/11 era, there was a lot of intellengence groups telling Blair and Bush just that, and there was too many people who thought Hussein was a problem. You may not like it, I may think they were a little too quick to go off, but please spare me the santicmonius tears for Hussein and how concerned you are about the deaths there now. I have yet to see a thread condemning the Arab world for condoning what is happening in Darfur, or condemnation for the Wahabi movement who have done nothing but turn Islamic adherents all over the world into Jihadist radicals, including the lovely gents who attacked the underground in London.

For people in the UK, you have been attacked, and drop the fiction that if Blair didn't go to Iraq, it wouldn't have happened. It would have, because the Western World has been under attack by these groups for some time now. These radicals are seizing on Iraq as the reason for their attacks, but that is a lame excuse and chances are they were looking for any justification to carry out their cause.

Being a Martyr is such a goal to some of these brain-washed fools that they have no concept of reality. It is the power players behind the suicide soldiers of Islam that really should be knocked off and THAT is what bothers me about the whole war in Iraq. The ringleaders as per usual are harder to get at...

[Ian McC]

who is showing the terrorists how to make the bobms anyway?

Bob M ? :eek:

[BDunnell]

For people in the UK, you have been attacked, and drop the fiction that if Blair didn't go to Iraq, it wouldn't have happened. It would have, because the Western World has been under attack by these groups for some time now.

You seem, as so many other North Americans, to be labouring under the illusion that the UK doesn't realise it has been attacked by Islamic extremists merely because we have a more 'relaxed' attitude than had the US after '9/11'. Maybe the fact that we are used to terrorist attacks in the UK, the funding for many of which came from sources that included successive US governments both Republican and Democrat, has something to do with it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, the governments of the US didn't supply money to the IRA, it was a bunch of idiot "Irishmen" in Boston that were sucked into supporting that mess. I know you guys know what terrorism is but I sometimes are of the opinion that you feel that if Iraq didn't happen, Arab Terrorist attacks on the UK wouldn't happen. Heck, that was what Bill Clinton thought too....

[BDunnell]

Well, the governments of the US didn't supply money to the IRA, it was a bunch of idiot "Irishmen" in Boston that were sucked into supporting that mess. I know you guys know what terrorism is but I sometimes are of the opinion that you feel that if Iraq didn't happen, Arab Terrorist attacks on the UK wouldn't happen. Heck, that was what Bill Clinton thought too....

I believe there is very good reason to say, as a Government committee has done, that the UK is at greater risk of attack by Islamic extremists as a result of the Iraq war.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They may be, but Canada stayed out of the Iraq mess, and we are at greater risk because of who we are. It isn't what a Western nation does or doesn't do, although they are factors, it is the fact we exist at all as Christian dominated/libreal democracies. What I am arguing, and have always argued is that we are the enemy just by existing. You have to understand to these whack jobs, killing "infidels" is their reason for being, and you seem to get extra points for killing Americans. I suspect Canadians and Brits would not be seen as bad victims to these people either, since we live in an even more libreal and socially permissive society than even the Yanks....

[BDunnell]

They may be, but Canada stayed out of the Iraq mess, and we are at greater risk because of who we are. It isn't what a Western nation does or doesn't do, although they are factors, it is the fact we exist at all as Christian dominated/libreal democracies. What I am arguing, and have always argued is that we are the enemy just by existing. You have to understand to these whack jobs, killing "infidels" is their reason for being, and you seem to get extra points for killing Americans. I suspect Canadians and Brits would not be seen as bad victims to these people either, since we live in an even more libreal and socially permissive society than even the Yanks....

As ever, while I may not agree with you, you have provoked my thoughts. :up:

I know that the Muslim extremists do come up with some flimsy justifications for their actions, but I don't think that we (meaning our leaders) should totally ignore the notion that we can provoke extreme reactions in these extremists, and, more importantly, cause previously moderate Muslims to become extremists. Therefore, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in being careful, though I do appreciate that this could go too far while at the same time not preventing every possible terrorist action (just as we cannot do so through security laws) because of the unpredictability of these people.

It is a very difficult conundrum.